One of the fundamental issues I see in Oklahoma is the lack of rule of law. I'm not thrilled we're releasing child molesters (that's who filed the suit), but I suppose starting somewhere is good.

As for VC funding, I'd love to see more of that. I do computer vision/nlp for a living, and I've had to leave the state due to lack of work. It's cheap, there are smart people, but they all leave after school.

Re-do your analogy but now it's that your dad killed someone and stole the deed to his land, found oil on it, and is now one of the richest people in the world and the person he killed's kid is now on the street begging for cash and tell me again how little you owe that kid who's father's land gave you your trust fund and your college education.

That's actually not that hard to do, both from a legal and a moral standpoint. Legally, the "you" in your analogy has never committed an unlawful act and is therefore not personally beholden to any restitution to the victim's side. It is the purveyance of a well-functioning justice system to provide adequate restitution for victims of crimes, but that does not extend to a personal obligation on people that had no part in said crime.

Morally, the story is a bit more convoluted but your premise falls back to the theory of original sin: that people can be personally held responsible for their heritage. In the past two-thousand years it has been proven a very powerful argument because it "feels" right, but at its core it is still a rejection of the individualist premise that all people are born equal. And I'm still on the side that believes all people should be born equal, even though that stance seems less and less prevalent nowadays. Once you start arguing for collective punishment of past crimes, it's very hard to argue your case without at the same time defending the same practice throughout many wars in history, and now explicitly outlawed in the Geneva Conventions.

In fact, the concept of original sin requires that we exist in a state of punishment for that sin permanently, not that we continue to benefit from it by, again, existing in the wealthiest civilization that has ever existed on this planet.

This is again a poor analogy, framing us as victims of an aggressor who wants something from us that we cannot give.

As for the geneva conventions, please note that colonial relations to indigenous people violated just about every single one of the geneva conventions. Forced resettlement, biological warfare, collective punishment, the destruction of non-military targets -- it is not "collective punishment" to expect there to be at least a moderate reparation for crimes committed. What is even the point of the concept of "war crimes" if you can get away with them just because "oh it's been too long".

A better analogy would be: your grandparent barged in to a persons house at gun point, demanded him to hand over his house. The owner obviously resist, and your grandpa tells the original owner that he will be given his house back in a couple of years(legally signed) to ease the resistance. This paper was also signed "with the current owner of the house", in mind(in case grandpa dies).

Now the original owner lives on the street, his grandchilden the same. Each generation have always asked "when would you live up to your promise?" to the descendant of your grandpa (current owner of the house) each year.

Now you can of course discuss if you should give additional compensation for their suffering, but the original contract still stands, and you've always been obliged to follow it. It's not about blame.

disclaimer: I'm in general in agreement with you that I don't think a child should be blamed for their ancestors sins.

This is a fundamentally flawed analogy. Our government - the same government that has existed since these treaties were signed - is still around.

> I find it very difficult to find the moral obligation to pay back that money when the people who were the actual victims are long dead

The question of a "moral obligation" is entirely irrelevant and unrelated to our government's legal obligation to uphold the treaty that our government signed.

I think you are making this too much about personal blame, and sin, and ego. Your analogy falls apart right out of the gate because the premise is off. It's not about placing blame or making you feel bad.

As long as restitution has not happened and you are still profiting from the act of wrongdoing and the victim (or their descendants) are still suffering from it. It's pretty simple, isn't it.

The facts are that the colonists / invaders genocided and displaced the original inhabitants of a continent and moved the survivors into reservations, probably to avoid it going down history as racially motivated genocide entirely.

Sure, you didn't do it, your ancestors probably didn't have anything to with it (or the slave trade for that matter), but that doesn't mean you shouldn't fight for other people's rights. They still suffer under what happened a hundred-and-then-some years ago, they are a people whose country was taken from them, whose culture was (attempted to be) erased, and who today what little they got as a consolation has also been attempted to be taken from them because said consolation actually did have some value.

Your analogy is wrong, oversimplified and trivializing the issue.

Since HN is the world of programming analogies:

I inherit a broken, bug-filled codebase when signing on for a new job. A year into continued development, a team mentions to me that the codebase is utterly broken for one of the tasks it was designed to do.

I respond, "why are you trying to make me feel guilty about code I didn't even write? The problem with programming 'outrage culture' is we have all these people talking about the flaws of jQuery and coupled interfaces and inadequate testing. It's not my fault the codebase suffers from those problems. I'm a good programmer."

The argument stops sounding reasonable in that context, because we recognize that fixing the code isn't about anybody's ego. Similarly, it is impossible to have a productive conversation about reparations when someone is spending all of their time trying to defend that they're a good person.

In reality, nobody cares about your guilt and nobody cares about whether or not you pass some kind of magic threshold where you can be considered 'good' or 'bad'. The entire question is worthless. They just want the problems fixed, and "we" collectively as a nation are responsible for refactoring and addressing problems that exist in the current systemically biased laws/treaties that we inherited.

But my instinct is that if someone says to me, "I don't want to deal with fixing inherited broken systems", at the very least my response to that is going to be something along the lines of, "that's fine, but then don't get in the way of other people who are fixing them."

This is true, but only because liens are special, not because it's a contract. You're not a party to your ancestors' debts or contracts if they die. At most, their estate is.

Interesting sentiment. As someone who grew up in Tulsa, Oklahoma, I think you should go there and tell the people who live there your thoughts.

It's not as good as the prime real estate they had, and the life they had there. Why do you think the government chose Oklahoma for the reservations?

Though I’m not sure that Brad Henry (D) really did much more for those people then anyone more recently (R). To be fair, I’ve not lived there for over a decade. There is quite a bit of grift in that state.

It is certainly not the land they were native to, and that is the important point.

Is this not correct?

A few highlights are: the Trail of Tears and the land grants and those who rushed to claim plots of land before the land rush started (illegally marking their territory - hence Sooners, the mascot of the University of Oklahoma). This was likely for sustenance farming and ranching (iirc) and incentivizing local development. (Oklahoma State is the agricultural school, and their mascot is the Cowboys, probably related to the massive cattle flows that ranged from Fort Worth to the Kansas City railroads).

The next highlight is the dust bowl where a drought made the land largely untenable for farming. This was the setting for the play “Oklahoma!” as well as the book “The Grapes of Wrath”.

Throughout the whole history, natural resource mining (specifically gas and oil) have been the primary economic driver of the state. Unfortunately for the state, through the 80s and 90s much of that moved to Texas. And indeed, Oklahoma is the heart of fracking today. (Or at least was, but my mom who’s an environmental chemist has retired, so I no longer hear the current stories).

My oddest memories (coming of age into teenage years) was during the Brad Henry (D) days. I was probably more inclined to that party, but saw some weird shenanigans during that period too. Like the “right to work” anti-unionization situation play out as well as the introduction of the Oklahoma lottery (to support education! / actually a grift machine for general government budgeting).

Tulsa has become increasingly swamped by seedy casinos (something I knew nothing of until my late high school days when I feel like they really began to take off).

If I were there today, I’d advocate for exactly what Tulsa has done: try and stop the brain drain by putting together programs to attract talent (like $10k grants to tech folks who move there), a renewal of investment in parks, and pitches to the likes of Tesla to attract national attention for innovation. The latter two were successful programs proven our by a city I lived in (and love) after college, Austin (just 7 hours south).

Anyway, that’s my grab bag of history, without going into too many of the unique stories that make up the history of the state. I hope I got most of it right!

My thoughts on the place have softened with my time away, and while I don’t intend to move back any time soon, I recognize the struggles the people who live there face. In some respects it’s the opposite of the Bay Area (where I live now) and in other respects it’s exactly the same.

I lived in Houston for nearly 10 years and totally agree with the poster you replied to, that area is a shithole that is really unpleasant if you don't have air conditioning. The local tribes were mostly naked and covered themselves in mud to avoid the mosquitoes so they had workable options they employed.

The Cherokees made up a large portion of the "Trail of Tears". The saddest part is they were largely fully "assimilated" into the "American" culture at the time. Most were fully "Christianized", spoke English, they translated many church hymns into their native language, built towns, and lived in houses. All like the "white man". Then they were asked to give up their guns and property and start marching.

Would be interested in your justification for holding citizens of today's US responsible for an event that happened more than 100 years ago, before they lived or breathed.

Yes, the whole point of being citizens is taking responsibility collectively as a populace for the actions of the state.

We collectively owe interest on the national debt. We still must abide by international treaties signed and ratified by long-dead representatives. We follow a constitution written long ago, and if we want to change it we follow its prescribed process. We pay taxes. We serve on juries. Those of us eligible agree we can be drafted into military service if necessary. And so on.

Absolutely, we have the process to modify laws or treaties we find no longer to suit the modern country. We try to move forward with better laws or fairer treaties, everyday. We as living citizens have the responsibility to improve today's laws. (As I hope we do regarding police conduct, to be topical.)

If I take your statement "...Citizens is taking responsibility collectively as a populace for the actions of the state." I would have to accept that my ancestors escaping persecution in another country and coming to this one, that I am morally bound to take on the social dogmas of the United States for crimes I did not commit or do not endorse today. I don't believe this to be correct or fair, but this is my opinion.

It seems like the historical weight of this country (or maybe any country) will crush it under past social deeds that are irremediable. Unfortunately, we can not correct the past, but we should heed it, to not make similar mistakes. If there is no way to not be guilty for the crimes of the state then perhaps we should abandon the state.

If we accept that the entity of the United States is responsible for these crimes and owes reparations...is it fair to use fungible tax dollars paid partially by immigrants to pay those reparations?

I don't know. Interesting puzzle to think about though.

The rule of law means that the entity states that it will comply with everything that is legally binding. As such it is responsible for paying those reparations. The way that entity raises funds is by taxation or borrowing, using itself as the collateral for the debt.

Do they owe reparations to each other, too? And what about the ones that are completely gone?

All of the discussion of reparations and making good on centuries-past injustices always leaves out how it all gets swept under the rug if there are no decendents around to make claims.

On the other hand I am a citizen of the USG and believe it should be held to its promises.

> The ones that are completely gone have no way to make a claim.

I could have been more clear, but I was trying to imply that we should remember that it's the lesser injustices that have claimants. The greater injustices would have none.

In fact, it raises an interesting question. Suppose that early American settlers genuinely just conquered the whole land, provided no reservations, made no special deals, and expected / enforced all remaining Native Americans to submit to the laws of the land. You know, like virtually every other conquering of a territory throughout history.

Would we look on those actions less favorably than the actions that were actually taken? Or would we just write it off morally as "every place was ultimately taken by force by someone at some point" and it be a non-issue, despite it being a much greater injustice?

I didn't own slaves, I didn't commit genocide, and neither did my ancestors. But I benefit from slavery that did exist, and my ancestors benefited from a genocide. Do I owe anything to the victim? No, because the victims have been dead for decades if not a century. But a failure to recognize ones obligation or duty to the rest of their community to bring an equity about such that their children or grandchildren don't even consider such questions - that's not nearly at the scale of destruction as our history has wrought but it does continue the cycle. If you want future generations to break from it, it starts by reconciling that your status is derived from the status of those who came before you, and that's not necessarily a good thing.

I don't think this is the best way to say it, because "I benefit from slavery" sounds kind of abstract at this point. In fact, white people benefited from all kinds of 100% real and explicit racism right up to and beyond Civil Rights.

You don't have to uncover anything hidden because you can just go look up e.g. zoning laws in Berkeley and they will just say in the meeting minutes that they'd invented them to keep out the blacks and Chinese. The reason highways go through US cities instead of around them is because they wanted to knock down the black neighborhoods. They really put a lot of effort into it.

One reason to fix it is that it'll improve life for you too - undoing zoning will make your commute shorter and housing cheaper. But of course, people tend to not care about their absolute quality of life as long as it's better than someone else's.

But you can't say "we collectively should decide we don't owe because we individually don't have choice". Either you are forced or you have choices.

That has stuck with me and I've been thinking. But I think I got an idea.

Maybe we should educate our young about the past, where we came from (fled state sponsored religious persecution to a land that was free). We could also teach about the mistakes that were made, you know, like how we purchased conquered and displaced refugees from muslim warlords and then tried to treat these people as some kind of property. Maybe even go over the past processes and laws that were used to free these people and become an even better society. Maybe even go further, like make/erect some statues of some of the past heroes that actually purchased some of these conquered people but then saw the light and worked towards freedom for all using the Bible as proof that God made only one kind of "mankind" and no one set is superior to another. Maybe even erect some statues of some of these conquered people to show that we are not ashamed of seeing them as people and not property.

Basically just kind of educate people so they don't grow up questioning the most basic tenets of their own nation and history?

Oh wait...

Nonetheless, the bible has been used to promote many ideas through the ages. Regardless of what Obama said years ago ("we are not a Christian nation, but a nation of citizens"), America was/is a Christian nation. The Bible and Christian faith were used in many areas to form the constitution, laws, and even our republic (based on the original notion of "judges" set before Israel in the old testament). Of course none of this is taught in schools anymore (at least I had never heard of it until researching in my adulthood), which is the problem I make a point of.

Edit: I see you don't consider the Native American genocide to be actual genocide, so I am going to conclude you're just ignorant of Native American history. It seems you have a very coddled view of American history.

Oh wait...

"Genocide: The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of a national, racial, religious, or ethnic group."

But I don't think that the giving of land (no matter how terrible the land is) for a group to live on truly counts as "attempted extermination".

As a European (Scot) who lived in Canada with my partner (Ojibwe) it became obvious how ignorant I was of the past wrt all Native American tribes and the indoctrination they were subjected to.

I'd mentioned to her that during this BLM movement that the African-American story is seemingly world-known but the Native American story less so. I believe their time will come when there is a greater understanding. Not an expert but my time living on the reserve but it seemed apparent that their society was still experiencing culture shock.

There is a big debate here in Canada about Canada's founding father John A MacDonald because he approved residential schools. It would be like a debate over George Washington in the US should he be on money, statues erected and so on.

Another topic is missing women in indigenous communities. Often murdered by a partner or stranger or simply gone missing without any known reason.

It's interesting to see how little talk there is in the US over rights of First Nations (or "Native American") people. It's a daily discussion here in Canada going on for years.

Easy to see how that kind of trauma in a family could affect the next generations, particularly so if their was abuse - which apparently was rife in the schools they were sent to.

Of course they are responsible, who else should be if not the one who are getting the historical benefits?

Do you use "we" in your country only to refer to the good parts of your history, or up to the day you set foot on it?

Do you think countries' debt should be cancelled every 50 year or so?

This idea of generational responsibility, taken to its full extent, might have some unintended consequences. For example, aren't there historical records that indicate that the at least some Native American tribes themselves fought over territory? How should those claims be adjudicated?

How does this logic work for Dreamers(DACA beneficiaries)? Should a child who benefits from their parent's illegal activities be punished years later? Should the grand-children be punished? great-grandchildren? The Supreme Court even ruled recently that DACA was illegally established. BTW, this is another good example where Congress should have passed legislation rather then letting the situation live in legal limbo.

As complicated as these considerations are, I still wonder about the unintended side effects if there were indeed some sort of substantial transfer of wealth from some subset of Americans to descendants of slaves. Wouldn't that create a terribly animosity between those groups and what if that transfer of wealth didn't actually resolve the disparities? What if 10 years later the metrics used to measure those disparities indicated that they still existed? More reparations? It isn't clear to me that wealth transfer can actually remedy many of the disparities that are observed. I think it is quite a bit more complex than that.

Tangential: to me (an European) it seems quite insulting to put all the (or just the five "civilized" ones?) native northern american tribes/nations in the same basket by capitalizing "Native Americans".